Vietnam’s quality and efficiency of investment in education

venue for education is a great effort of Vietnam Government. However, non-state economic sectors have also recently been increasingly involved in education and training activities. The policy of prioritizing investment in education and socializing educational activities to attract non-public budget investment resources for human resource training and talent fostering is therefore reasonable. However, state budget should only be priorotized to focus on investing in some essential areas, but it is at the same time recommended to renovate the management model according to the autonomy mechanism for public educational institutions towards strengthening and broadening investment resources for this sector [12]. 2) Vietnam’s education is curently a relatively attractive market for investors. The fact that non-public educational institutions have increasingly affirmed their role and position in the overall national education has proved that the total investment resources of society for education in Vietnam are extremely potential and open-widened. Simultaneously, the international education system in Vietnam has also flourished. This demonstrates that although being prioritized to invest substantially, Vietnam’s public school system is facing a number of questions from their own operation mechanism as well as increasing level of more fierce competition of non-public educational institutions. This competitive process is regretably indispensable in the context of market mechanism, but it should be noted that once the public school system has been prioritized by the state to invest, they have not yet reached their full potential, chances of success in the context of upcoming integration will be a big challenge. 3) The number of Vietnam’s students studying abroad has recently been increasing rapidly. The majority of these are self-funded overseas learners. The total investment capital for overseas study of Vietnamese is rising considerably, 450 VIETNAM’S QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF INVESTMENT IN EDUCATION while the age of Vietnam’s abroad studying students is younger and the level of education is also expanding very fast. That fact has made Vietnam become one of potential educational markets in the world. The question for Vietnam’s national education system is not only to continue attracting investment resources from the state, society, and outside, but also to have suitable solutions to compete in a fair way with foreign education institutions right on their own home soil. This is not a simple problem for Vietnam’s current education institutions, but basically there is no other option in the global game that Vietnam has voluntarily participated proactively. 4) In essence, Vietnamese invest in education not only to develop themselves, but also to improve overall human resource quality of the country. To a certain extent, Vietnam’s national education system has somewhat achieved the goals of improving people’s knowledge, training human resources, and fostering talents. Vietnam has never possessed a human resources which are as sizeable, qualitative, and increasingly approaching standard levels of Asia as well as the world as what she is having. Nevertheless, reforming the higher education finance mechanism is still an urgent question. However, the mechanism of allocating public resources for education should be based on principle of fair and healthy competition [12] in order to be able to improve the quality and enhance the effectiveness of investment resources for education in the coming years. 5) Vietnam is one of the countries with the highest proportion of social resources invested in education in the world. The total amount of time, effort, and butget that the Vietnamese invest in education is immense. However, the proportion of Vietnam’s trained workers is still fairly modest. The number of people leaving the country to look for career opportunities in other economies is also increasing quickly. Meanwhile, the number of Vietnam’s abroad studying students returning home is getting smaller. At the same time, labor productivity of Vietnamese is basically still a challenge. Limiting and redefining the relationship between resource investment priority policies and actual results achieved of education system is therefore an urgent issue not only for the future and destiny of educational institutions, but also of the country’s long-term development strategy. In short, Vietnam is one of the countries with relatively large total investment resources for education. With the tradition of fondness for learning and respect for teachers established over thousands of historic years, Vietnamese often see education as one of the shortest possible routes for the future of each one as well as the whole nation. Based on the existing tradition and the increasingly urgent development needs of society, both Vietnamese officials and people attach great importance to prioritizing investment in education in a methodical and systematic manner, but the quality and effectiveness of investment are another story. The percentage of trained labor and labor productivity of Vietnam’s human resources is still a disadvantage. This fact shows that Vietnam’s quality and efficiency of investment in education are still not commensurate with potentials and expectations. III. CONCLUSION In conclusion, investing in education is a long-term strategic investment and has great expectations, because it focuses on one of the most fundamental issues of all time, the quality of human resources of all nation-states. Vietnam is one of the countries with the highest priority to focus all possible resources on education and training. Actually, Vietnam has also achieved a lot of respectful achievements in the area of education and training in terms of number and qualification. However, recently some pragmatic views claim that Vietnam’s investment in education in some cases is inefficient and leads to a waste of resources of learners themselves, their families, stakeholders, and society as a whole. The first manifestation of this problem is the redundancy of academic teachers and shortage of skilled workers that the whole society has recently been extremely worried. They all show that investing in education is a right strategy for both the state and people, but how to invest qualitatively and efficiently is a big matter of debate in the context of restricted resources. This fact raises several issues both in terms of Vietnam’s ducational philosophy and development philosophy in the future. IV. REFERENCES [1] Nhật Hồng (2018b). Giáo dục đại học Việt Nam đáp ứng như thế nào với vấn đề thất nghiệp? Retrieved from https://dantri.com.vn/giao-duc-khuyen-hoc/giao-duc-dai-hoc-viet-nam-dap-ung-nhu-the-nao-voi-van-de-that- nghiep-2018101808270761.html. Accessed on October 19, 2019. [2] Đinh Thị Nga (2017). Đầu tư của nhà nước cho giáo dục, đào tạo: Thực trạng và một số đề xuất. Retrieved from de-xuat-125673.html. Accessed on October 19, 2019. [3] Hồng Hạnh (2018). Năm 2017: Chi ngân sách cho giáo dục là 248.118 tỷ đồng. Retrieved from https://dantri.com.vn/giao-duc-khuyen-hoc/chi-ngan-sach-cho-giao-duc-la-248118-ty-dong- 20180930163940791.html. Accessed on October 19, 2019. [4] Bất ngờ với mức chi ngân sách cho giáo dục năm 2017 (2018). Retrieved from muc-chi-ngan-sach-cho-giao-duc-nam-2017.html. Accessed on October 19, 2019. Nguyễn Mậu Hùng 451 [5] Hoài Phong (2018). Năm 2018: Chi thường xuyên gần gấp 3 chi đầu tư phát triển. Retrieved from https://motthegioi.vn/kinh-te-c-67/tai-chinh-dau-tu-c-98/nam-2018-chi-thuong-xuyen-gan-gap-3-chi-dau-tu-phat- trien-79265.html. Accessed on October 19, 2019. [6] Thùy Linh (2018). 52% biên chế cả nước thuộc về ngành giáo dục. Retrieved from duc-24h/52-bien-che-ca-nuoc-thuoc-ve-nganh-giao-duc-post184586.gd. Accessed on October 18, 2018. [7] Tổng cục Thống kê (2018). Tình hình kinh tế - xã hội 9 tháng năm 2018. Retrieved from https://www.gso.gov.vn/default.aspx?tabid=621&ItemID=18957. Accessed on October 20, 2019 [8] Thanh Hùng (2019). Chưa hết lo với tuyển sinh giáo dục nghề nghiệp. Retrieved from Accessed on June 21, 2019. [9] https://baotintuc.vn/xa-hoi/tu-chu-co-so-giao-duc-nghe-nghiep-tao-buoc-dot-pha-nang-cao-chat-luong- 20190103224043318.html, Accessed on June 21, 2019. [10] National Institute for Vocational Education and Training (2018). Vietnam Vocational Education and Training Report 2016. Hanoi. [11] Nghiêm Huê (2017). Toàn cảnh “bức tranh” tiến sĩ Việt Nam. Retrieved from https://www.tienphong.vn/giao- duc/toan-canh-buc-tranh-tien-si-viet-nam-1212927.tpo. Accessed on October 18, 2019. [12] Minh Anh (2018). Nguồn lực tài chính đầu tư cho giáo dục còn eo hẹp. Retrieved from 58465.aspx. Accessed on October 19, 2019. [13] Tổng cục Thống kê (2011). Tổng điều tra dân số và nhà ở Việt Nam 2009, Giáo dục ở Việt Nam: Phân tích các chỉ số chủ yếu. Hà Nội. [14] Xuân Anh (2018). Những nét nổi bật của giáo dục nghề nghiệp năm 2018. Retrieved from https://www.nhandan.com.vn/xahoi/item/38752802-nhung-net-noi-bat-cua-giao-duc-nghe-nghiep-nam- 2018.html. Accessed on June 21, 2019. [15] Thanh Xuân and Đức Trung (2018). Năm học 2018-2019, cả nước có hơn 23,5 triệu học sinh, sinh viên. Retrieved from 23-5-trieu-hoc-sinh-sinh-vien.html. Accessed on October 18, 2019. [16] Nam Việt (2017). Du học sinh Việt Nam ở nước ngoài tăng mạnh. Retrieved from gioi/201703/du-hoc-sinh-viet-nam-o-nuoc-ngoai-tang-manh-726389/. Accessed on October 15, 2019. [17] Mỹ Anh (2018). Tăng cường các nguồn lực đầu tư cho giáo dục và đào tạo. Retrieved from va-dao-tao-473674.htmlAccessed on October 19, 2019. [18] Viện Khoa học Giáo dục nghề nghiệp (2017). Báo cáo Giáo dục nghề nghiệp Việt Nam 2015. Hà Nội. [19] Huy Quang (2017). Những con số biết nói trong bức tranh giáo dục đại học Việt Nam. Retrieved from https://www.tienphong.vn/giao-duc/nhung-con-so-biet-noi-trong-buc-tranh-giao-duc-dai-hoc-viet-nam- 1176124.tpo. Accessed on October 14, 2019. [20] Tổng cục Thống kê, MICS, and Unicef (2014). Việt Nam điều tra đánh giá các mục tiêu trẻ em và phụ nữ 2014. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/vietnam/sites/unicef.org.vietnam/files/2018-07/MICS2015_Brochure_VN.pdf. Accessed on October 18, 2018. [21] Nhật Hồng (2018a). Bức tranh giáo dục Việt Nam sau 5 năm “Đổi mới căn bản toàn diện. Retrieved from https://dantri.com.vn/giao-duc-khuyen-hoc/buc-tranh-giao-duc-viet-nam-sau-5-nam-doi-moi-can-ban-toan-dien- 20181013111401235.htm. Accessed on October 14, 2019. [22] Nguyễn Đức Nghĩa (2018). Người lao động, ở đây. Retrieved from https://tuyensinh.dantri.com.vn/tuyen- sinh/30-hoc-sinh-hoc-nghe-chuyen-trong-mo-20181003090446201.html. Accessed on October 15, 2019. [23] Phương Thảo (2015). Cả nước có 22,21 triệu học sinh, 1,24 triệu thầy cô giáo. Retrieved from Accessed on October 18, 2019. [24] Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo (2018). Hội thảo “5 năm đổi mới căn bản, toàn diện giáo dục và đào tạo - những thành tựu và thách thức.” Thông tin Giáo dục và Đào tạo. Thông tin về các hoạt động. kết quả và chỉ đạo/điều hành tiêu biểu của ngành Giáo dục trong quý III/2018, Hà Nội. [25] Nghiêm Huê and Tiền Phong (2017). Những cảnh báo 'giật mình' tại diễn đàn giáo dục 2017. Retrieved from https://news.zing.vn/nhung-canh-bao-giat-minh-tai-dien-dan-giao-duc-2017-post780964.html. Accessed on October 19, 2019. 452 VIETNAM’S QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY OF INVESTMENT IN EDUCATION [26] Tổng cục Thống kê (2019). Thông cáo báo chí về tình hình Lao động việc làm quý I năm 2019. Retrieved from https://www.gso.gov.vn/default.aspx?tabid=382&idmid=2&ItemID=19136. Accessed on June 23, 2019. [27] Nguyễn Đình Bắc (2018). Phát triển nguồn nhân lực chất lượng cao ở nước ta trước tác động của cuộc cách mạng công nghiệp lần thứ tư. Retrieved from Traodoi/2018/50924/Phat-trien-nguon-nhan-luc-chat-luong-cao-o-nuoc-ta-truoc.aspx. Accessed on July 9, 2019. [28] Yến Nhi (2017). Thị trường lao động Việt: Chất lượng chưa tương xứng với bằng cấp! Retrieved from Accessed on October 18, 2019. [29] Lê Thị Hồng Điệp (2014). “Những hạn chế về lao động và việc làm trên thị trường lao động ở Việt Nam hiện nay,” Tạp chí Khoa học Đại học Quốc goa Hà Nội: Kinh tế và Kinh doanh, Tập 30, Số 4, tr. 52-59. [30] Accessed on October 14, 2019.